nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 113:
Line 113: +
→Advocacy for and against [[The theory of evolution]]: They do object, but for no good reason.
:: because it's a daft term? we are more likely to use "unscientific", "ignorant" and the like? Anti-evolutionist is not used by anyone because the queen's english provides plenty of terms already. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 19:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:: because it's a daft term? we are more likely to use "unscientific", "ignorant" and the like? Anti-evolutionist is not used by anyone because the queen's english provides plenty of terms already. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 19:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Some evolutionists ''do'' object to the term (apart from Cgday here, who presumably does as well), although I'd probably put it more because they think it has the connotation of an unsubstantiated/unsubstantiatable belief. I don't use the word that way. I use it simply as a straightforward description of a person who accepts as true the proposition that evolution has occurred. I've encountered this on talk pages at Wikipedia, and written about it on my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Evolutionist.22 user page there], but despite me writing that over two years ago, no evolutionist has offered a better alternative. Instead, they tend to adopt the tactic of Cgday here, that ''anything'' that might possibly suggest in the slightest way that evolution is not absolute fact is totally unacceptable, and they'd rather insult (call us "ignorant") than admit that there might be any doubt about evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
==Evolutionism as a [[worldview]]==
==Evolutionism as a [[worldview]]==